Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Image Galleries > "Pictures of you with an RRS sign" - Why make it sexy?

Posted on: June 4, 2007 - 9:53am

Drea

Posts: 67

Joined: 2007-06-03

Offline

Image Galleries > "Pictures of you with an RRS sign" - Why make it sexy?

I'm unclear on the message RRS is trying to project with this.

This world is suggestive and idolizes women, from an evolutionary standpoint, RRS should be working hard to remove the stigma around this sort of thing. One thing Christians have going for them (and i say this cautiously) is that they don't generally approve of women walking around projecting a strong sexual image. It's really too bad that the women of this (specifically North American) are seen so strongly as sex objects instead of intelligent beings.

Nakedness is natural, the body is natural. It's a real shame that people in this society feel a need to make a statement by linking it to sex and more specifically, the female body. If you want to have a great body, for great sexual reasons, keep it for the great sexual reasons, it doesn't make sense to use this as a way to get viewers or whatever your agenda is.

If you keep this up there... put out a challenge to the men... make it equal, make it sexual (please not pornographic). It's a fallacy to think that only hot women are sexually stimulating... Guys need to recognize that women love hot men too... so hot men out there who want to make a statement... hang it creatively from your dangly. It's not rational however to be fighting the themes of morality while taking steps backwards creating the sexual prison that women find themselves involunatarily and unhappily in and locking men into not being able to release the conditioning that sexual fantasy has to be like this. Would be nice to have a day where people are seen as equals sexually, physically, intellectually. These actions are not condusive to a world where equality exists, and people have natural freedoms.

And to the women... show how brilliant you are intellectually... no one really needs to read it plastered across your chest, they wouldn't be reading that message anyhow. Rise above the stigma that is out there, women are just as sexy and evocative being brilliant, intelligent and well educated.

I'm not about oppressing sexuality, I love it as much as the next, I'm against the whole idea that society is locked in a mindset that women have to make statements sexually, it degrades a progressive image that we can be free of and respected as women who are intelligent and worthy of equality and respect. Humans as a species don't have a great future to look forward to untill all can be respected for what they are and this message simply destroys that.

Drea

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

But I've called in Darth Josh just for you... you're about to get your sexy time wish.

Uh oh....

Drea, you do have to account for the fact that socially it is seen (more so for men than for women) that showing sexually provocative pictures of yourself is seen as a sign of vainity, in other words, weakness. You need to account for this in your tally of who has what problems to overcome in order to achieve true egalitarianism/equality.

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...

This world is suggestive and idolizes women, from an evolutionary standpoint, RRS should be working hard to remove the stigma around this sort of thing. One thing Christians have going for them (and i say this cautiously) is that they don't generally approve of women walking around projecting a strong sexual image. It's really too bad that the women of this (specifically North American) are seen so strongly as sex objects instead of intelligent beings.

Head explodes. Reread what you just wrote.

"This world is suggestive and idolizes women, from an evolutionary standpoint, RRS should be working hard to remove the stigma around this sort of thing. One thing Christians have going for them...is that they don't generally approve of women walking around projecting a strong sexual image."

We've got no problem with women or anyone else flaunting their sexuality if they choose to do so. The human body does not offend any of us in the least. It's YOUR body, do as you wish with it - including posing half naked with our banner if you so desire.

Kelly's really the one you want to have this convo with. Thor forbid the woman have a chest and appear on TV :roll: You wouldn't believe the shit she has to deal with.

Quote:

Nakedness is natural, the body is natural. It's a real shame that people in this society feel a need to make a statement by linking it to sex and more specifically, the female body. If you want to have a great body, for great sexual reasons, keep it for the great sexual reasons, it doesn't make sense to use this as a way to get viewers or whatever your agenda is.

There wasn't much of an agenda involved. I think the pics you are refferring to are of Amanda Bloom, who's a bit of a exhibitionist. She sent us pics, asked them to be put up, and we put them up. That's it.

We don't use them for advertising or anything else, the only place we have them posted is here - at the request of a friend no less. I honestly never thought much of it. Amanda had no problem with it, so niether did I or any or us. You're actually the first person to mention them in any negative fashion and they've been up for nearly a year.

Quote:

If you keep this up there... put out a challenge to the men... make it equal, make it sexual (please not pornographic).

If some fat guy shaved RRS into his back hair and sent us a pic and asked us to post it, we'd do it. No men have ever sent such or asked for such. And no, we wouldn't show pics with genitles, we're not running a porno site here.

Can I ask if you'd have a problem if the girls posed with a sign at the beach in a bikini? She'd be showing just a much.

Quote:

It's a fallacy to think that only hot women are sexually stimulating... Guys need to recognize that women love hot men too... so hot men out there who want to make a statement... hang it creatively from your dangly.

I have no idea where this is coming from

Quote:

It's not rational however to be fighting the themes of morality while taking steps backwards creating the sexual prison that women find themselves involunatarily and unhappily in and locking men into not being able to release the conditioning that sexual fantasy has to be like this.

How exactly have we locked women into a sexual prison by posting pictures we were asked to post? It seems you're the one with a repressed and sexist notion of sexuality here in all honesty.

Quote:

Would be nice to have a day where people are seen as equals sexually, physically, intellectually. These actions are not condusive to a world where equality exists, and people have natural freedoms.

Yeah, no idea where this is coming from, you clearly don't know us all that well.

Quote:

And to the women... show how brilliant you are intellectually... no one really needs to read it plastered across your chest, they wouldn't be reading that message anyhow. Rise above the stigma that is out there, women are just as sexy and evocative being brilliant, intelligent and well educated.

Brilliant women are insanely attractive, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to be and being physically attractive as well. If you want to flaunt your sexuality, do it - AND BE BRILLIANT TOO! You keep mentioning this stigma, and you won't find that here. You don't counter such notions by buttoning the top button on your shirt and denying that you're a sexual being - you do it by being BOTH, if you so choose to be.

Quote:

I'm not about oppressing sexuality, I love it as much as the next, I'm against the whole idea that society is locked in a mindset that women have to make statements sexually, it degrades a progressive image that we can be free of and respected as women who are intelligent and worthy of equality and respect.

Women don't have to do anything they don't want to do. In this case, a woman wanted to pose half naked with our sign.

Quote:

Humans as a species don't have a great future to look forward to untill all can be respected for what they are and this message simply destroys that.

Drea

Look, Drea, I'm sorry if I got snippy with you. You're new here, and you don't really know our history or that of our friends and associates. I can see how you drew the conclusion you did, but I assure you it is unfounded.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

I think it's fine, like i said, i'm not against people expressing themselves. I don't like the message we send out time and again as a society that we should manipulate sexual fantasy into logic and reason. If this site is about rational response, well, it's not a "rational" response. But it could be taken as a "fun" response. Either way, i'm personally not a supporter of endorsing images of intelligent women manipuating their sexuality to get a "logical" reaction.

You have a magnet "another reason for atheism" or something like that... with some girl on it. It's not another rational reason for atheism, christianity has lots of hotties. If this is a rational response site well... cudos. But... like i said, i'm not a fan of endorsing women into this train of thought. As much as we want to liberate Christians from their God prison, it's too bad that women aren't liberated from the sexual prison they are in. Some are, good for them, but they are still putting those images out to incite a sexual response, not a rational or intelligent one.

I'm not against people exploring their sexuality, just not at the expense of mixing the worlds up and the message to send out. It's ok to be sexual, intelligent and freethinking, but projecting an image of sexuality onto atheism isn't rational, philosophical or anything. It might be aligned with the way this site represents itself but i hope it's not an image that christians adopt of the rest of us atheists.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

It's not about covering up, and i don't walk around buttoned to the top. You don't know my past but to call me a sexual prude would be one of the last things people who know me would say. That said, it's the mix of messages.

Context for instance, my parents are saddened that i'm an atheist, probably more than any other thing i've done in my life (i've done a number of doozies). Anyhow, seeing images where people are being sexually suggestive and mixing in atheism is a negative association for them. If we want to free Christians from a mindset, this isn't the way to do it. I LOVE your Darth Josh pic, it's fantastic. It's natural, funny, and not sexual. If women did this, i'd be cool with it because it's not a sexual message. I dont want mom thinking that now that i'm an atheist i can get away with anything, act however i want etc. We should be trying to get that stigma removed from perseptions. Her gut instinct from her own conditioning and programming would just incite a knee-jerk reaction. It's the projected but unintentional image. Atheisim is not about philosophy or life values. People are entitled to their own (within reason, we all know about community and conscience). It's simply a statement about divinity, theism, spirituality etc. (i'm taking some liberties because it's my personal opinion, and i'm not speaking for everyone.)

We came to earth naked, we spent much of evolution naked, it's not wrong, it's just not "atheist" to make it sexual if you know what i'm getting at.

Bikini's at a beach... i don't care about. Making atheism and having it cheered on by a macho sexual fantasy... not my bag baby. I think it's counter productive to reaching christians who are concerned about their spiritual selves and breaking free.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

If this site is about rational response, well, it's not a "rational" response. But it could be taken as a "fun" response. Either way, i'm personally not a supporter of endorsing images of intelligent women manipuating their sexuality to get a "logical" reaction.

I disagree. The fact that people are attracted to certain body types (albeit with individual preferences, but as a generalization) is in fact an evolutionary mechanism. Men like boobs because that is an indicator of a woman's readiness for reproduction. Men are attracted to younger women because they have more reproductive years available and are more likely to survive pregnancy and childbirth and produce a child with fewer genetic defects. Women do not generally have the same kind of response to visual stimulation because from an anthropological standpoint women chose their mates based more on the ability to protect and provide for their offspring, and also because women are the scarcer resource from a biological perspective. Just about any post-pubescent man is capable of reproduction.

Quote:

i'm not a fan of endorsing women into this train of thought. As much as we want to liberate Christians from their God prison, it's too bad that women aren't liberated from the sexual prison they are in. Some are, good for them, but they are still putting those images out to incite a sexual response, not a rational or intelligent one.

I in no way feel that I am in any kind of "sexual prison". Conversely, I feel very much in charge of and proud of my sexuality. If anything, I feel that the men are more imprisoned by this than the women who may or may not choose to use it to their advantage.

Quote:

I'm not against people exploring their sexuality, just not at the expense of mixing the worlds up and the message to send out. It's ok to be sexual, intelligent and freethinking, but projecting an image of sexuality onto atheism isn't rational, philosophical or anything. It might be aligned with the way this site represents itself but i hope it's not an image that christians adopt of the rest of us atheists.

Nobody is projecting an image of anything onto "atheism". Atheism is made up of individuals, and those who choose to be sexy can be sexy and those who choose not to don't have to. As far as I'm concerned, and I believe that I stated something similar in the "Atheist diversity and RRS criticism" video available here and in the show from last week in which Jake did individual interviews of each of us, but if somebody was more interested in us or our site (or even wasted time talking about it in their blog or forum--whatever) because they saw me on Nightline and thought i was hot or had nice tits or whatever, my ultimate goal of getting people here and getting people talking was still served. And, not to sound arrogant, I have a feeling that there were more than a few of those based on the feedback that we've gotten. As a matter of fact, I had an email in which a man specifically said that he had never heard of us and was sitting around flipping channels when he saw me and stopped. He then watched the rest of the debate and even went through the trouble of getting my contact info through the site to tell me that. So...yeah. We need more hawtness, not less.

See, this is more fun and goofy. It's not sexual... that's more inline with people having a good time and making it even. If you guys do something goofy hell, i'd be tempted to throw something silly in too. Making statements like this is such a more positive message in terms of projected image. It's fun, it celebrates freedoms, but it's not mixing messages, it's just fun.

IMHO, it takes the pressure off women to have to submit sexy pics because we all get judged on it being sexy or not. It also removes the image that atheists don't need to be morally responsible (i KNOW it's not true before someone jumps on me, i'm an atheist too) because that's the opinion christians will jump to. And it's not mixing an opinion with fantasy on a "rational thinkers" website. Making it fun and silly, we all can do that, great bodies or not, and it's fun for everyone.

Yeah, i'll put up something goofy if you all do :D

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

It's your website, not mine. It's my opinion, obviously not shared by you. All good. I'm not going to say women can't be hot, i'm not about oppressing anything. I don't even disagree on your logic about attractiveness on evolution.

If you don't mind using your body to futher your agenda and the site, that's up to you. If you are comfortable with that, it's your perrogative and really not my business nor is it my place to agree or not agree. What i was saying, perhaps in a convoluded way, is that by mixing the atheist rational response to religion with sexual fantasy isn't logical. You might get guys to show up cuz they want to fantasize about you and further the numbers on the site but... it's not elliciting a logical response to the atheist/religious question.

I already heard your interview, and i already knew your position. I just hope that Christians or religious people don't think that all of us exploit our sexuality to get people to listen to us. I also hope that while we are always seeming to fight the stigma that atheists are ammoral, that this doesn't backfire on an image that i hope goes away. I'm not saying what you are doing is ammoral, but what i am saying is that in the CHristian view of things, it is. Exploiting ones body isn't a christian concept, even if you gain. So, while trying to reach christians in a rational way and if engaging them into this line of thought is one of the agendas of this site, i would suggest that this is not a totally great way of going about it.

It's not a personal slam against you Kelly or anyone else who has tons of confidence in their body image and celebrates their sexuality. Cudos for that, it's just i think to reach people who are slowing trying to reconcile their doubts about religion and are searching for knowledge, their conditioning would make them withdraw because of this image.

Maybe that's not what this site is about. I could totally be mistaken. Perhaps this site is about a common ground for atheists, for atheist so share rational responses and isn't about educating or trying to reach Christians in doubt. I could totally be off on my assumptions and if so and it's just a chilled out place for atheists to do whatever and express whatever then i take it all back and conceded without contest that these opinons have no place here.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

It's a good thing I'm not the jealous type...cuz if I were I'd say "back off you piece of vomitus mass! You scum sucking vile remnant of a diseased amoeba!You loathing degenerate strip of slug scum!"...if I were jealous…which I’m not…jealous.

Kidding, I can’t fault a man for having eyes… I liked her so much I married her!

Cheers!

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.

Well, beyond that, this is a community where you can have your opinion and I can have mine and mine doesn't necessarily trump yours just because it's "my" site. I welcome dissenting views and that's what makes it interesting and informative.

Quote:

mixing the atheist rational response to religion with sexual fantasy isn't logical. You might get guys to show up cuz they want to fantasize about you and further the numbers on the site but... it's not elliciting a logical response to the atheist/religious question.

I see it as a very rational way to get people to come here and then find logical responses to the issue of religion. Like the neon sign that attracts customers to a business.

Quote:

I just hope that Christians or religious people don't think that all of us exploit our sexuality to get people to listen to us. I also hope that while we are always seeming to fight the stigma that atheists are ammoral, that this doesn't backfire on an image that i hope goes away. I'm not saying what you are doing is ammoral, but what i am saying is that in the CHristian view of things, it is. Exploiting ones body isn't a christian concept, even if you gain. So, while trying to reach christians in a rational way and if engaging them into this line of thought is one of the agendas of this site, i would suggest that this is not a totally great way of going about it.

I don't think that we should be catering to the christian worldview in any way, and particularly not with regards to sexuality. The best way to remove a stigma is to get it into the public sphere and force people to deal with it. Look at homosexuality. Should they just keep quiet because religious people don't agree with them? That isn't the way to liberate anybody--it has the opposite effect of keeping them in bondage to the opinions and beliefs of others.

Quote:

Maybe that's not what this site is about. I could totally be mistaken. Perhaps this site is about a common ground for atheists, for atheist so share rational responses and isn't about educating or trying to reach Christians in doubt. I could totally be off on my assumptions and if so and it's just a chilled out place for atheists to do whatever and express whatever then i take it all back and conceded without contest that these opinons have no place here.

We aim to do both here. We want to offer a sense of community to the often isolated (or seemingly-so) atheists AND we want to educate and reach those who are trapped in delusional belief systems. But, like I said before, catering to their conception of morality isn't how we choose to go about it. I would say that it is highly likely that many more theists would be scared off by our logo than by any number of relatively mild pictures of women holding signs.

It's a good thing I'm not the jealous type...cuz if I were I'd say "back off you piece of vomitus mass! You scum sucking vile remnant of a diseased amoeba!You loathing degenerate strip of slug scum!"...if I were jealous…which I’m not…jealous.

Kidding, I can’t fault a man for having eyes… I liked her so much I married her!

Cheers!

Lol. Well I mean no harm. Im a married man myself. Just pointing out that clothed or not it doesnt really matter. Women look good either way.

Perhaps this site is about a common ground for atheists, for atheist so share rational responses and isn't about educating or trying to reach Christians in doubt.

The issue here is simply that the owners of this site (and their close associates) feel that we can educate "the irrational" without shielding them from sex. You seem to disagree, that's fine. Keep in mind we live in a country in which about $50 per year per person is spent on the porn industry. And you should see what the porn industry is like in some of the heavy Islamic countries, it's worse!

Sex doesn't scare people... it attracts them. This thread is starting to make me think that if "you got it" and you don't flaunt it to help the world overcome religion, than you are not doing enough (assuming you feel comfortable with it). I'm not there quite yet, I know that's a bold statement... but I'm starting to ponder it.

People don't put up neon signs advertising cheap beer and once inside try to sell them stamps. I guess i'm part of that group of women who is sick and tired of being seen as sexual objects for men to drool on or fantasize about. I like knowing htat i'm attractive, and i like being considered "hot". I respect men enough that i wouldn't use it to my advantage, nor would i use it to further my own agenda. I want to know i'm an equal and got things by playing on the same field as everyone else.

Our principals differ there. I'd love to see what the other intelligent women on this site think tho.

About catering to the Christian view? Who says that view is entirely Christian. Just because you have a view different than mine isn't making me Christian. I have this view because i don't want to live in a world that segrigates women who dont' have that advantage. I dont' want to live in a world that thinks it's ok for hot women to sexually maniulate and exploit weak men for their own agenda. I just plain old don't agree. That's not a Christian standpoint, thats a vision of community, it's a vision of equality, it's a vision of respect for the common and uncommon folks of our species. Its something that i wish one day the world would adopt as a philosophy. It's a rational response. You might think you're so great, but you are oppressing the women among us who don't have your advantage. Survival of the fittest you might say, but it's not condusive to harmony, condusive to holistic approaches for everyone. Your approach does more harm than good.

I know your approach is practical for you right now, but... you might find that MANY atheist women agree with me too.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

I have no problem with how you want to run your site. I'm stating an atheists opinion. My own rational atheist response.

It's not about porn that i'm attacking, it's not about me against people getting off or whatever. It's about sending a message about atheism that isn't atheist. Atheism is not a philosophy, atheists have their OWN philosophy. Athism is an opinion, it's a perspective on spirituality, the devine, the whatever happens after life, and on the individuals interpretation for their existance.

To address those issues on theology is one thing. Talking theology is a big asset in helping those dealing with it. Talking about ones own lifestyle choices is another. Period. Mixing a message of atheism into sexuality doesn't help people who don't make that association with it. Like me, i htink it's a negative image of what i think of as astheism. Atheists can react any way they want with their knowledge, but atheism is just a premise, and should not be distorted into sexual fantasy.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

I also hope that while we are always seeming to fight the stigma that atheists are ammoral, that this doesn't backfire on an image that i hope goes away. I'm not saying what you are doing is ammoral, but what i am saying is that in the CHristian view of things

[I do not speak for the RRS, they have enough problems without dealing with me being their representative]

Public groups, like the RRS for example, must always keep in mind the image that they are projecting. On this point I completely agree. Everything they say and do will be scrutinized by those that wish their destruction.

The pervasive idea that atheists are amoral is more of a confusion of terms than it is misconception based on lack of understanding. What I mean to say is, theist know full well that they have no more capacity at being moral than atheists do, the problem that they have is we do not always prescribe to THEIR version of morality. So really, they see amorality when what is really happening is just a difference in morality. Which is something that theists cannot abide.

If a theist sees a sexy picture which 'represents' an atheist or atheist group they take their opportunity to call us hedonist savages. I say, fantastic. IMO we should do less running from the fear of being classified by people who hate us on a fundamental basis. Cudos to the RRS for challenging xian morality, for risking being called amoral, etc.

Great topic Drea, this is one of those conversations that could go in a zillion different directions.

I totally expect the majority not to understand where i'm coming from. I perfer the view the majority sees of us as being activists in getting separation of religion from state. I prefer them seeing us as people who simply challage the validity of religion. Atheists can spin it to whatever they want but... as a collective image i don't think we are helping our cause any, we just give fundamentalists, and all other christians who are slightly imballanced to make our lives relaly difficult.

I have nothing but respect that Sapient and Kelly went on TV and publically challenged Christians and all other theists. I totally admire their courage. My simple statement was about mixing sexual fantasy with atheism. It just doesn't have a place.

Again, majority rules and if everyone is totally hip to having half naked women with RRS signs on them and having, no offence, larger men making a joke of it from their side. Well... shows to me the progress of nature as going in the ditch. This world is disappointing enough with the lack of respect between the sexes. It's these responses that show there is not much to look forward to in finding equality for everyone, not just between the sexes, but for those women who aren't physically "gifted" and men who aren't bright enough to make tons of money to be "providers".

If we are going to stone age thinking where it's survival of the fittest, then... honestly, God help us.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

I agree with Kelly in that we shouldn't cater to the Christian faith in any way because by doing so we are validating their beliefs and rules. But which of you is catering to it...or are you both?

I agree with Drea that women have been objectified as fantasy play things by a mysogonistic society. This mysogony is a results of the Abrahamic religions - women were below men and should be subserviant to them according to the teachings of the bible. This concept was used to turn women into fantasy objects of desire by covering them up - their personality and message became less important then the fantasy of them sexually. In societies where no such level of fantasy mysogony and prudishness exists (the beliefs in the evils of women and their suductive power) evolved, you don't see this level of objectification of women. Ever see National Geographic pictures of topless women in tribes in Africa? Why is it in their society men aren't drooling idiots when they see breasts? Simply, the women weren't objectified as purely sexual objects for mens pleasure - they are infact more sophisticated then we are in this regard. The mysogny imprisons women because they fear being judged against other women and rejected as inadequate - it is a prison for men because the "fantasy" and reprssed sexuality it has caused gives women a power over them. -- No one wins except those in a position to use it to take control, and by using it to manipulate others, you are feeding into the mysognistic nature of it.

IMHO, Drea is validating the Christian faith by supporting it's mysogony and sexual repression by conforming to it so Christians aren't offended when they visit.

Kelly is doing the same thing by leveraging the mysogony and sexual repression to draw attention to the site.

So, you are both wrong in my estimation - you are both supporting the Abrhamic male fantasy of women as subserveant objects.

I reject your realities and substitute my own!

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.

People don't put up neon signs advertising cheap beer and once inside try to sell them stamps.

That wasn't the analogy I was going for. It would be more like the sign that makes a product/place either stand out from its surroundings or that makes it appear attractive and enticing. Like the cheap beer ad that gets you into the store where you buy a $40 dollar case.

Quote:

I guess i'm part of that group of women who is sick and tired of being seen as sexual objects for men to drool on or fantasize about. I like knowing htat i'm attractive, and i like being considered "hot". I respect men enough that i wouldn't use it to my advantage, nor would i use it to further my own agenda. I want to know i'm an equal and got things by playing on the same field as everyone else.

Well, you can't have it both ways, first of all. Either appearance matters or it doesn't. In this idealistic world where everybody is equal, there should be no standard by which to judge your attractiveness, nor should you gain pleasure from it. In the real world, people are judged on appearance all the time. I firmly believe that every job that I've ever had has been based in part on my appearance, and that doesn't include my current line of work. It can also be a disadvantage, particularly when other women (who tend to be jealous) are placed in a position of power over you. Anywho...I think that the benefits of attractiveness are no less important than the benefits of intelligence and that I should be free to use all of the assets that I have to further my goals in any area.

Quote:

About catering to the Christian view? Who says that view is entirely Christian. Just because you have a view different than mine isn't making me Christian.

I never said that you were - in fact, your argument was based on the fact that theists/christians would be put off by overt sexuality, so I'm not getting that point.

Quote:

I have this view because i don't want to live in a world that segrigates women who dont' have that advantage. I dont' want to live in a world that thinks it's ok for hot women to sexually maniulate and exploit weak men for their own agenda. I just plain old don't agree. That's not a Christian standpoint, thats a vision of community, it's a vision of equality, it's a vision of respect for the common and uncommon folks of our species. Its something that i wish one day the world would adopt as a philosophy. It's a rational response.

I believe that the "rational response" is to stop trying to create an impossible idealistic fantasy world where everybody is on equal footing. In the actual world, equality doesn't exist. I'm not saying that as far as basic rights go everybody isn't entitled to the same ones--I'm saying that we aren't equal in terms of intelligence, attractiveness, wealth, or any of the other assets that determine your status in society. It is better to accept that and work with it, and hopefully benefit from whatever assets you possess, IMO.

Quote:

You might think you're so great, but you are oppressing the women among us who don't have your advantage. Survival of the fittest you might say, but it's not condusive to harmony, condusive to holistic approaches for everyone. Your approach does more harm than good.

I don't recall saying that I thought that I was great at all. And the fact that you are claiming that I am responsible for anybody else's oppression is ludicrous. Everybody can do whatever they choose regardless of my choices. Do you think that I am also responsible for the oppression of those who are less intelligent than I am by using my intellect to further my goals, or is that an acceptable asset while physical attractiveness is not?

Quote:

I know your approach is practical for you right now, but... you might find that MANY atheist women agree with me too.

They very well may. Fortunately, I am entitled to my own opinion and the choice to behave and present myself as I choose. That is the worldview that I want to promote, not one in which I am somehow at fault because other women feel pressure to maintain a certain appearance or appropriate level of attractiveness.

Why would you say i am supporting Christian ideologies when in fact, all i am trying to give is a fair vision. A vision of a world where there isnt' that bias. A world where there is an equal playing field. I want to hope that future generations woudl benefit from an idea that you don't use sexuality to explot men suseptible to it. I dont have a problem with nudism in it's setting, i'm not a prude, i'm not Christian. It's my NON christian views that server to better mankind IMHO.

Atheism isn't about sexual fantasy, and women shouldn't use their assets and condone it becaues it is oppressing the other women who don't have that advantage. It's not Christian, it's just about respect.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

It's about sending a message about atheism that isn't atheist. Atheism is not a philosophy, atheists have their OWN philosophy.* ... Like me, i htink it's a negative image of what i think of as astheism. Atheists can react any way they want with their knowledge, but atheism is just a premise, and should not be distorted into sexual fantasy.

*emphasis mine

You are using your own "philosophy" of atheism in order to label something as being unrelated or harmful to the image. Kind of hypocritical, no?

Why would you say i am supporting Christian ideologies when in fact, all i am trying to give is a fair vision. A vision of a world where there isnt' that bias. A world where there is an equal playing field. I want to hope that future generations woudl benefit from an idea that you don't use sexuality to explot men suseptible to it. I dont have a problem with nudism in it's setting, i'm not a prude, i'm not Christian. It's my NON christian views that server to better mankind IMHO.

Atheism isn't about sexual fantasy, and women shouldn't use their assets and condone it becaues it is oppressing the other women who don't have that advantage. It's not Christian, it's just about respect.

I said I disagree with you both, but at the same time I agree with you both. That said, since there is no easy solution - either we are as bad as they are and support their mysogony with sexual fantasy images of women, or we in a sense validate it by excluding the images period...

Given the two choices, I would agree with you that the lesser evil is not having the images because by not we avoid mixing the messages at least.

So I revise it, I think you are both wrong...but you are less wrong

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.

Well, phooey. We had this discussion several months ago shortly after Amanda sent in the pictures in question. Happily, this one seems to be going a little better than the last one, so that's progress, anyway.

Sapient and Kelly have made good points, but I'd just like to throw in a few pennies worth of thoughts as well.

* The Rational Response Squad is not just about religion. It is about any irrationality, particularly those that cause demonstrable harm.

* The notion that there's something wrong with women who revel in their own sexuality is irrational. Science backs us up on this statement. Women who are happy and comfortable with their sexuality are healthier and happier.

* The notion that using sexuality to promote something is somehow bad is irrational. There's nothing wrong with sex, and there's nothing wrong with advertising. Advertising is, after all, how we get sex, reproduce, and propogate the species.

* If one repressed woman comes to this site and sees people like Kelly, Fyre, and some of our other happily unrepressed members, and it helps her free herself from her own irrationalities, then the RRS has accomplished one goal.

There's precious little hard science regarding female sexual social behavior, largely because religion and male-dominated cultures haven't seen fit to examine the facts in detail, and because some wings of radical feminism have become compliant bedfellows (sorry!) with the radical religious. There are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, don't want to know for sure that women have created a bizarre and unhealthy religio-cultural wet blanket to throw over themselves, particularly in America. If a few saucy pictures of women who think atheist websites are cool will help get the discussion on more tables, that is a good thing in my humble opinion.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Ugh. Just to show how sensitive this issue is, I'll go ahead and answer the next post before it's posted...

I'm not saying RRS has an official stance on this. I'm saying that if someone comes to the board and says something irrational, we try to help them see their mistake. We're here for truth, reality, and rationality. Obviously there are differing opinions on this matter, and no one should take my post as a definitive statement of RRS opinion. However, I've yet to see any scientific, peer reviewed research that showed that A) Pictures of near naked women are bad, or B) Advertising with pictures of near naked women is bad.

Until science demonstrates that women's sexuality should not be celebrated, admired, and yes, desired in the special tingly sort of way, I'm going to insist that it's not rational to believe it.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

I have nothing but respect that Sapient and Kelly went on TV and publically challenged Christians and all other theists. I totally admire their courage.

Thanks.

Quote:

My simple statement was about mixing sexual fantasy with atheism. It just doesn't have a place.

Doesn't have a place in what? Your personal ethical code? Great. Don't do it. You need to realize that you are criticizing us based on your opinion of what we should represent as atheists, which you confusingly also say does not have a philosophy to represent. Well, we represent ourselves. That's it. Take it or leave it, I guess. Everybody is free to participate in whatever ways they choose here.

Quote:

Again, majority rules and if everyone is totally hip to having half naked women with RRS signs on them and having, no offence, larger men making a joke of it from their side. Well... shows to me the progress of nature as going in the ditch. This world is disappointing enough with the lack of respect between the sexes. It's these responses that show there is not much to look forward to in finding equality for everyone, not just between the sexes, but for those women who aren't physically "gifted" and men who aren't bright enough to make tons of money to be "providers".

If we are going to stone age thinking where it's survival of the fittest, then... honestly, God help us.

This is nature. Equality is not a part of nature--sex is. Natural selection is. Ethics and "rights" are man-made constructs based on what we have decided is beneficial to having a productive, semi-harmonious society. Nature just is what it is, and as I said before, I find it more advantageous to adapt to it and hopefully prosper as a result. I assume that you will be giving away whatever money that you make that doesn't go to an absolute necessity to others around you in order to level the playing field. I assume that you won't pursue a degree so as to put you at an unfair advantage over those not fortunate enough to be able to afford college educations. I don't mean to sound hostile, but if you really lived as you claim we all should--promoting equality above all else where nobody is unfairly "gifted" with resources and assets, that's what you should do. And, honestly, I wouldn't want to visit the place where things like intelligence and appearance are no longer important or recognized as being advantageous. Should there be a balance--sure. Am I advocating a caste system--no. Do I wish that intelligent, attractive people would out-breed everybody else--yes. And I'm not at all ashamed to admit that. Fortunately, though, I don't expect everybody to share my opinion.

I am interested in your response to my question about using the "gift" of intelligence.

People don't put up neon signs advertising cheap beer and once inside try to sell them stamps.

As a past part-owner of a beer store I can attest to the fact that we put neons out to attract customers. Those neons were always from Bud, Coors, Miller, etc... the cheap beer. Once inside we had a world of specialty beer that awaited you. At one point it got to the point where if someone asked for Miller, it was as if you knew they hadn't been to our store for a while. Yes, beer stores do advertise cheap beer and try to sell patrons more (we tried to sell them cigars and lottery tickets too).

Quote:

I guess i'm part of that group of women who is sick and tired of being seen as sexual objects for men to drool on or fantasize about.

Enjoy it, it's nature at work.

Quote:

I like knowing htat i'm attractive, and i like being considered "hot". I respect men enough that i wouldn't use it to my advantage, nor would i use it to further my own agenda.

Wear a fat suit for a month and come back to me and tell me that you don't already use your looks to further your agenda or use your looks to your advantage. You're kidding yourself by telling yourself otherwise, you may not be doing it purposefully but you're doing it everywhere you go (it's natural for both sexes to interact this way). That strapping fine looking husband of yours has a little something to do with your looks, and I'd bet your job does too, your friendships do, etc.

Quote:

I want to know i'm an equal and got things by playing on the same field as everyone else.

Why are you using an image of your attractive face as an avatar? Wouldn't you feel like you could get a fairer shake on this forum to be treated as an "equal" intellect if you didn't let the world know that you were incredibly attractive?

Quote:

I have this view because i don't want to live in a world that segrigates women who dont' have that advantage.

I want to live in a world where I don't have to sleep, unfortunatly I don't see that happening. Maybe someone could invent a pill or something, eh? (for both issues)

Quote:

I dont' want to live in a world that thinks it's ok for hot women to sexually maniulate and exploit weak men for their own agenda. I just plain old don't agree. That's not a Christian standpoint, thats a vision of community, it's a vision of equality, it's a vision of respect for the common and uncommon folks of our species.

"Equality" is rather interesting. While I do believe that we should all be afforded similar civil liberties, I do not believe we are all equal. Is my ability to reason equal to that of an autistic person or someone with down syndrome? Is my knowledge equal to that of a 13 year old? Is your ability to attract people to you based solely on looks equal to mine? Is your ability to create a website equal to mine? Is my ability to do what you do for a living equal to yours?

Yes, I agree people deserve a sort of fair and equal treatment of each other. However we all enjoy the company and time of other people for different reasons. Someone may want to talk to me about religion because they view me as a celebrity, or they think having a website is cool, or maybe they want to dialogue with me because they view me as polite and intellectual. However they choose to dialogue with me, it is likely they have chosen to attach to particular facets of me in their decision to do so. Oftentimes they are picking traits about me that are not equal to others, this is just how interactions take place. Conversely, maybe you can attract someone to a conversation about religion because they find you beautiful, or they think you're smart, or maybe a combination. They likely don't view you as equal to a 12 year old "little yellow bus" student on issues like religion. We are no equal.

Look, here's what I'm trying to get at. We all have certain positive qualities that we can put out to the world. Some of us have more than others. The people who have more positive qualities aren't entitled to more freedoms or rights, if that's the "equality" you're fighting for, then I agree. It's natural selection at it's finest here. People who have more positive qualities (these include beauty, brains, money, charm, personality, etc, etc...) are more likely to create offspring, and that offspring will seek relationships with people of as many positive qualities they can find.

What you're seeking is for us to cut off a natural positive quality. There are many positive qualities that we have. I see no distinction between our beauty as a positive quality and knowledge or charm or money. I believe it's our right and duty to use all of our positive qualities to the best of our ability or risk having your genes cut from the pool.

Quote:

You might think you're so great, but you are oppressing the women among us who don't have your advantage.

And so are you with your avatar.

Quote:

Survival of the fittest you might say, but it's not condusive to harmony, condusive to holistic approaches for everyone. Your approach does more harm than good.

I don't think you've proven that.

I'm curious will you also be calling out the people of extremely high intellect on this forum who tend to go over the head of the common folk? I've been thinking lately that smart people should try to curtail the smartness so that we can all feel more equal and harmonious. You picking up what I'm putting down?

Excellent, I respect all views and humbly acknowledge that majority rules.

I don't disrespect anyones views. I just put out mine. But just as a moment of clarification, i have no problem with women being sexually happy, healthy beings. I had a problem with it being involved in an atheist message. But again, it's perception and majority rules.

I respectfully withdraw while keeping my own conclusions. I'll still be the "repressed" woman but... i can look at my less fortunate friends who have to fight in this world without Kellys "advantages" knowing that i don't take advantage of mine. And i with draw knowing i have personal pride in that.

Again, it's interpretation. Live and let live.

PS. Kelly, i'm not attacking the way you look, i'm against a mindset. I don't care if you are large chested or not, personally, i think it makes sex fun and have entertained the thought of "reinforcing" my fun because after 3 kids, i could use some stability. I have no problem people thinking i have fun with my body, with the person i share my body with, and i invite people to see me as a sexual being, i like it. What i wouldn't do is use it as an asset over a man. Men and women are equally intelligent. I wouldn't want to be picked for a job that a man was equally qualified for just because my boss could imagine me sexually. It's not my charactor i guess. I also think that women wouldn't want to backstab other women so much if those women who feel threatened didn't feel inferior on grounds they can't possibly compete on. Everyone can better their intellect, but women gotta have money to make themselves look better, and considering Cher... even that is relative. It's a very selfish attitude, it's arrogant and in general, a mindset that will get women more disdain and disrespect than anything else.

Feel free to contact me further, as I am always prepared to back my opinions and engage with other intelligent women on them. I just see that htis thread has a consistent majority rules thing going on and it's not my place to dictate the site. I conveyed my point based on my principals, nuff said.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Atheism isn't about sexual fantasy, and women shouldn't use their assets and condone it becaues it is oppressing the other women who don't have that advantage. It's not Christian, it's just about respect.

Any asset that I have is an advantage. If someone else does not have that asset that's their tough luck. People are born every day with advantage over me, I don't think it is reasonable for them to surrender or otherwise agree to not use their advantage to spare my feelings.

Ugh. Just to show how sensitive this issue is, I'll go ahead and answer the next post before it's posted...

I'm not saying RRS has an official stance on this. I'm saying that if someone comes to the board and says something irrational, we try to help them see their mistake. We're here for truth, reality, and rationality. Obviously there are differing opinions on this matter, and no one should take my post as a definitive statement of RRS opinion. However, I've yet to see any scientific, peer reviewed research that showed that A) Pictures of near naked women are bad, or B) Advertising with pictures of near naked women is bad.

Until science demonstrates that women's sexuality should not be celebrated, admired, and yes, desired in the special tingly sort of way, I'm going to insist that it's not rational to believe it.

I suggest that you believe your position is rational only becuase you were raised in a society that objectifies women. You are validating the entire concept by supporting the images going up. The entire discussion is a catch 22.

The objectification of women in our society IS a direct result of the mysogonistic nature of the Abrahamic religions. Bottom line is, we shouldn't need naked pictures on this site simply because we shouldn't even care at all if women have their tops off - if we are truly to escape the dogma, we should all be as free and open sexually as those tribes men and women in Africa that wouldn't even understand this debate because they don't have the sexual objectification concepts even built into their cultures that created this debate.

Bottom line, this debate shouldn't be about nudity or sexual images be allowed, this debate shouldn't even happen if we are truly free from the Abrahamic dogma.

Women shouldn't feel the desire to post sexual images of themselves and conversly women shouldn't feel the desire to take issue with that -- to be honset, you all sound like a bunch of christians hung up on sex!

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.

To address those issues on theology is one thing. Talking theology is a big asset in helping those dealing with it. Talking about ones own lifestyle choices is another. Period. Mixing a message of atheism into sexuality doesn't help people who don't make that association with it.

We don't just cover religion as an irrationality, we also cover issues like peoples fear of using their natural evolutionary given talents to their advantage. Wasting your life by sidelining your evolutionary advantages is just as irrational as wasting 10% of your income in a church.

Quote:

Like me, i htink it's a negative image of what i think of as astheism.

But you admit atheism isn't a philosophy. You should have no expectations of atheism, for if you do, it'll likely let you down.

Quote:

Atheists can react any way they want with their knowledge, but atheism is just a premise, and should not be distorted into sexual fantasy.

Atheism isn't a premise and it has absolutely nothing to do with sex. I couldn't even draw a paralel if I tried. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in any gods, nothing more, nothing less.

I just see that htis thread has a consistent majority rules thing going on and it's not my place to dictate the site. I conveyed my point based on my principals, nuff said.

NO WAY Drea! You're doing great, this is one of those really stimulating topics. You've got everyone thinking and that's a good thing. Granted, from what I can tell you are in the minority on the opinion itself, but fuck all who say we have to agree.

I believe that the path to understanding has to begin with questioning. Questioning of our social standards is, I feel, one of the most important directions we can take our intelect. It is the one that defines our world, and we should always be checking to make sure we understand where our morals come from.

Ok, maybe i sound like a kid, maybe i sound like someone who came from an environment of conditioning. Sometimes life isn't so simple tho, sometimes we have to recognize people with less attributes aren't less real or less entitled to the good things too.

My avatar, i like it because i'm not sexual in it, it's me. It's me as a peaceful, humerous and engaging individual. I'm not projecting a "come higher" look, i don't have tons of cleavage exposed (i could if i wanted to, i HAVE that option) and i want people to see me as someone who is intelligent, free thinking and to be honest, i want others who know me and visit this site to see me. I want them to see what i post, know it's me, and make their own judgements. I don't hide what i think, and i don't hide my face. I act respectfully so that i don't have people attacking me or being malicious but... yeah, i like that image because i see the real me in it. It's natural, it's me.

I'm glad i had the opportunity to express my thoughts. And as you can see, i respect people with differeing views, as Vorax is my hubby and clearly doesn't agree either, well, i love him anyhow for his intelligence and free thinking and hopefully he wont be too afraid to see me at home tonight

Oh.... implying that i got my husband by my looks, we met online first before we ever met, and we were attracted first by intelligence and commonality, looks was a great follow-up when we later agreed to meet. That's how i liked it, i wouldn't trust him so much to love me if i thought it was about looks... there isn't a permanance to that. In fact, i wouldn't date outside of online dating sites because i DIDN'T want to find someone because of my looks. Sure, i had an attractive image on my profile but it was very similar to what you see here, not a suggestive one. I can be secure knowing he loves me for me, not because of my looks. It does, however, make sex pretty darn ok too. Yay for attribute benefits.

Again, hoping we can all walk away as friends with different values. It's part of the brilliance of the world, but... i do hope better for the less attributed in a long term world prognosis.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

I don't disrespect anyones views. I just put out mine. But just as a moment of clarification, i have no problem with women being sexually happy, healthy beings. I had a problem with it being involved in an atheist message. But again, it's perception and majority rules.

It really isn't "majority rules". First of all, this messageboard is a place for discussion, but overall, as far as the RRS is concerned, we as a group purposely go out of our way to not promote any "belief" that we (in our core group) don't agree on because we view each other as rational individuals, albeit with different perspectives on certain issues. This issue is one on which we all agree and therefore feel is the more rational view to promote here. The people who frequent this board may have differing opinions, but the ultimate decision as to what kind of content is displayed here is ours. Discussion about our decisions is generally welcomed, but we tend to stick to our position once it is formulated.

As far as an "atheist message" goes--there really isn't one outside of the fact that there is no evidence for god-belief and we here find it to be hazardous for the individuals and societies who are trapped in it.

Quote:

I respectfully withdraw while keeping my own conclusions. I'll still be the "repressed" woman but... i can look at my less fortunate friends who have to fight in this world without Kellys "advantages" knowing that i don't take advantage of mine. And i with draw knowing i have personal pride in that.

I would still be interested in your response to my previous question about other "advantages" and the fair usage of them in a society in which all are not lucky enough to have all of them.

Quote:

What i wouldn't do is use it as an asset over a man. Men and women are equally intelligent. I wouldn't want to be picked for a job that a man was equally qualified for just because my boss could imagine me sexually. It's not my charactor i guess. I also think that women wouldn't want to backstab other women so much if those women who feel threatened didn't feel inferior on grounds they can't possibly compete on. Everyone can better their intellect, but women gotta have money to make themselves look better, and considering Cher... even that is relative. It's a very selfish attitude, it's arrogant and in general, a mindset that will get women more disdain and disrespect than anything else.

That is your personal choice, and that is fine. But you came here and picked out an issue and then wanted to see us conform to your personal standard. That would be a direct violation of our own freedom of choice. I think that your argument would be better defended if you were consistent. In reality, your objection has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with your "mindset", with which I disagree. As we've said before to numerous types of objections, we do things the way that we want to and everybody else is free to do the same. There is no "philosophy of atheism" and we aren't the "spokespeople" for anybody other than the Rational Response Squad.

marcusfish wrote:

Any asset that I have is an advantage. If someone else does not have that asset that's their tough luck. People are born every day with advantage over me, I don't think it is reasonable for them to surrender or otherwise agree to not use their advantage to spare my feelings.

I totally agree. Ha! Majority rules!

(No really--we wouldn't care if everybody disagreed. There are certain limits at which we stop catering to others' opinions and just go with our own.)

Well, poop. I'm going to be the bad guy, I guess. Drea, I would like for you to do something. You don't have to post about it, or acknowledge to us in any way that you've done it, but I think it would do you some good.

Remember, this site is about helping people overcome irrationality, not just religion. Having said that, I would like you to go to some other threads, and read the entire threads. What I want you to see is a particular pattern of argument.

Theist: Such and Such is true.

Atheist: No, it isn't, because of X.

Theist: Yes, but Such and Such is true.

Atheist: You didn't even talk about X. Science, logic, etc... went into X. Can you argue against X? If not, then you must admit that your argument is irrational.

Theist: My argument isn't irrational, because Such and Such is true.

Atheist: But... but... dude... I just showed you in print that you're wrong.

Theist: Yes, but I'm right.

Atheist: How?

Theist: Because Such and Such is true.

....

Anyway, this goes on ad nauseum. The atheist makes a valid statement of fact, and the theist ignores it, and goes on ranting about this or that aspect of their belief in god. The atheist presses the theist. The theist re-asserts. The atheist presses. The theist goes away without answering.

Now, in this very thread, Kelly and Sapient both have made some excellent observations, and asked you some very good questions. Atheists and theists alike are responsible for personal honesty, whether they like the conclusions they reach or not. You, Drea, have not answered the questions. You've just restated your own opinion, and now you've said you're leaving the discussion because of "majority." (Sorry, I'm not buying this as the reason you're ducking out of the conversation.)

We respect your right to your own opinion, but that's as far as it goes if your opinion isn't backed up by sound logic. I'm not trying to rake you over the coals here, or make you feel bad. Believe it or not, I'm trying to help. I want you to address the questions you've been asked, and if you find that you can't answer them, well, it might be that you have some irrational beliefs about female sexuality.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Like me, i htink it's a negative image of what i think of as astheism.

But you admit atheism isn't a philosophy. You should have no expectations of atheism, for if you do, it'll likely let you down.

Would you agree that the goal is to rid ourselves of the the dogmas of religion? If so, then why would we use one of the very artifacts of religion to try and attract people to Atheism? If it hadn't been for Abrahamic religions, we wouldn't have porn on the net in the way we do today - Period.

Step back for a second and view it from another perspective with a different example of an artifact of that religion - Will we tell christians that they should be Atheists becasue we are against gays? The concept that homosexuality is wrong is another meme that was propigated by christianity. Should we use the power of fear which is built into the christian minds regarding gays to try and sway them to this site? No, right? Why would we use the mysogonistic objectification of women that they created as a means to do it then?

As I said in a different post, this entire debate only exists because the Abrahamic religions made sex and sexuality taboo - by acknowledging it even so much as rejecting it and especially by using it to manipulate, you are supporting it. Freedom from religion should also include freedom from the unjustified concepts and changes it has made in our society as well.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.

The objectification of women in our society IS a direct result of the mysogonistic nature of the Abrahamic religions. Bottom line is, we shouldn't need naked pictures on this site simply because we shouldn't even care at all if women have their tops off - if we are truly to escape the dogma, we should all be as free and open sexually as those tribes men and women in Africa that wouldn't even understand this debate because they don't have the sexual objectification concepts even built into their cultures that created this debate.

Really, this isn't entirely accurate. Our society is particularly obsessed with breasts (mostly because they have removed from their biological function as a mechanism by which we feed babies), but indigenous tribes are not as sexually free as you want to present them. The typical African man doesn't care about breasts, but he sure is turned on by thighs, which are generally concealed. The nudist tribes may not have an issue with nudity, but if a man gets an erection in public, it is cause for shame. There are also many strange rituals and beliefs surrounding sex in these cultures. NO culture is completely free of some kind of cultural mentality surrounding sex, just like no culture is free of some kind of conditioning concerning going to the bathroom.

I guess all it really comes down to is if you would like to keep your clothes on please do. If you would like to remove some clothing also feel free to do so. I think everyone can make that choice for themselves. I will elect to keep my clothing on. At least until I get a tan.

I'm prepared to keep going on this but i can also call a spade a spade. I respect everyones rights to their opinion as i expect them to respect mine. I don't have to agree, and i'll probably fight against it still, but... i won't persecute anyone for their values or opinions. Sounds kinda moronic i know... not persecuting by fighting but... i just mean that i won't subscribe to their agenda, and i won't support it and i'll side with the people who have my views. But, i won't be going out to slander anyone for their views either. For me, this post gave me to introduce my own ideals, my own perspectives. You all have yours, i have mine and hey, i celebrate that, and i LOVE that people can challenge mine, i've had my mind changed so many times over the years that i question my mental stability sometimes (not too much, i really don't need the little bus, and my helmet hasn't seen use in ages).

I do like to get people thinking, to challenge values. I'll go so far as to say that contemporary christianity has had some good philosophies in it. In an effort to remove the irrationality from religion, i hope society doesn't go so far as to remove the good stuff too. While this liberal view might be the majority here, i would suggest it's not the majority elsewhere. I can think of a few strong independant brilliant and internally beautiful women who woudl back me we are agnostic or atheist. I'm comfortable with that knowledge and am not seeking hte approval of everone here nor should I. It's the beauty of life.

Quote:

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Given the two choices, I would agree with you that the lesser evil is not having the images because by not we avoid mixing the messages at least.

So I revise it, I think you are both wrong...but you are less wrong

That's funny man. Did your wifes evolutionary advantages just make you lighten up your stance on her. Did her beauty possibly (maybe even subconsciously) enter the equation when lightening up your position? Want to make sure you can have your bioligical need to spread your seed met? (man, did I just cross a line? lol)

Seriously dude, you don't have to answer those questions. Through 30 years of being a male and having countless friendships with other men I am fairly certain I already know the answer to these questions.

And I don't think I've said it yet but welcome aboard to both of you. And anyone new who I haven't said hi to for that matter. Maybe we can come up with a "cute couple" badge for Vorax and Drea. Although Drea... would that be bad?

Sexual-ness is subjective. As Kelly said, breasts are the big thing here, but perhaps in Japan its the back of the neck. Back in the day, a lady showing an ankle would create a scandal!

I don't think using your looks is necessarily a bad thing; in fact we probably do more than we even realize. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people fine me attractive; others certainly do not. Some people might find my avatar very sexy. Others might think I look stupid or something. It's all relative.

The only picture I ever really see when I go on this site is the one on the top banner, with everyone in their t-shirts. These pictures that have created this hullabaloo aren't representative of the RRS. I don't see them plastered everywhere. We're not forced to view them. RRS can't be entirely responsible for everything that is written/posted here for fear that it would offend. People use swear words; others find that offensive and could argue that atheists are uncouth because of it.

Sorry, hope that made sense, I'm at work and trying to do this quickly!